LOL! Apple is officially pissed off at IBM for not being able to supply CPUs (PowerPC) when they want it...So they're now gonna go with Intel! Does that mean Mac OS X is gonna be ported to x86?

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

(1) probably not that important as very few people actually upgrade systems anyway.
Is the 890 chipset later than the 800. Naming convention would make it appear so then you wonder why it cannot use the new CPU.

(2) Thats a bit strange. How will apple try and "prove" it performs better when
it uses the same cpu but most of the other items are probably a bit behind.

I suspect that something will be done to make it incompatible with non apple computers. Apple resists not being in 100% control to the last moment possible.

I'm not sure how popular this chipset is...If it isn't, then it won't matter all that much.

But if a sizeable investment was made by companies and customers, then its a bit of a big deal, assuming that they planned for upgrades to dual-core. (If not, its a non-issue...BUT, this contradicts what VIA had announced earlier, when it said all its K8 series chipsets support dual-core.)

I'm not too sure of what to think of the Apple picking Intel CPUs article. It maybe good in one sense. (People may be able to experience Mac OS X on a larger scale, without having to take the time with FreeBSD...For those wishing to jump of Windows, this could be a good thing).

But you also could get Apple fans in a whole lot of hysteria. (Who knows how some of them react! They maybe fine with it...They may chuck a fit.)

I suspect they'll be using Pentium-M based solutions (single- and dual-core) as Mac Mini (budget) will undergo the transition first in mid-2006, and Power Mac (high-end) follows in mid-2007.

I wouldn't mind a dual-core Mac Mini...But it depends how its priced against any clones out there. (AOpen has a Mac Mini clone based on Pentium-M already).

If this really does go ahead, software developers have approx 1 yr to re-write, re-compile, re-qualify their software. (Maybe emulation is also needed for some old Mac apps, who knows).

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

By Charlie Demerjian: Sunday 05 June 2005, 06:40
THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQIORER has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models.

The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times. Âµ

Looks like its becoming true...Apple will adopt the x86 architecture. LOL!

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

It'll take a year for the transition to take place, but I do agree. If you're getting a Mac, wait until this time next year.

I highly suspect these will be dual-core Pentium-M powered affordable* systems, while the high-end Intel (Power Mac) will be two years away.

* I do say "affordable" with a footnote. Apple is an "elitist" provider of hardware/software. And knowing the price premium they charge, I wouldn't consider them to provide affordable solutions that rival home built (DIY) solutions. The main thing they have going for them is OS X. This is what everyone wants, an alternative to Windows!

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

stmok wrote:I highly suspect these will be dual-core Pentium-M powered affordable* systems, while the high-end Intel (Power Mac) will be two years away.

* I do say "affordable" with a footnote. Apple is an "elitist" provider of hardware/software. And knowing the price premium they charge, I wouldn't consider them to provide affordable solutions that rival home built (DIY) solutions. The main thing they have going for them is OS X. This is what everyone wants, an alternative to Windows!

True. Though in the notebook market they arent that bad a deal. Certainly (before the Mini) the only segment where Apple product was affordable to me.

As for desktop Intel Macs, I imagine no matter what Apple tries to do to stop OSX working on generic x86 hardware people will get around it. Of course there will only be drivers for the Apple supported stuff.

It certainly offers an interesing possible future where you could have a dual-boot system OSX for normal stuff, and then booting into Longhorn for games. I'd you even need that....I'd imagine VirtualPC for intel-Macs would run rather well.

I would expect apple to make it as incompatible as possible as i mentioned above.

I can't see the benefits for the consumer of OSX on inte vs OSX on IBM (except perhaps slight decrease in price).

Just because its an intel cpu. It would still be an apple - If you cannot run windows on it easily then there will be no diff.

Anyway these details will emerge. !! assuming the rumour is true. The interent
is often a great example of the saying "if enough people say something then it becomes fact". And as we all have seen - this is not always the case.

For starters, these types of rumours are often started just so somebody can negiote better prices.

jerrek wrote:I can't see the benefits for the consumer of OSX on inte vs OSX on IBM (except perhaps slight decrease in price).

Well...they can at least look forward to more powerful notebooks which wasn't the case with the PPC. And given more than half of all Macs sold are notebooks I imagine this had something to do with the switch.

(1) When Steve Jobs left Apple and came back as CEO, he wanted to push for x86. (Even though, publically, he was promoting the PowerPC).

(2) OS X has been living a double life...PowerPC and x86 versions. Both have been updated and maintained. Of course, the x86 one was done in secrey in anticipation of a transition process.

(3) (a) Why not AMD? Because Intel has a HUGE production capacity. They're proven themselves with clients like Dell and their ability to produce an affordable response despite being inferior performance-wise (Pentium-D). AMD can't do that, they're just started with dual-core and they need until early next year before the first 65nm CPUs are ready.

Intel's 65nm CPUs have already been demo'ed and are undergoing testing. If push comes to shove, they can get them out if the situation arises. (currently, they are targetted for early 2006 release...Delibrately timed to "show up" AMD).

(3)(b) One of the biggest partners pushing for DRM technologies is Intel. AMD isn't really enthusiastic about the technology. (I guess its because they have alot to lose if they suddenly snuck this in).

I suspect OS X will use some type of DRM hardware/software checking mechanism. It'll allow you to run Windows on a Intel based Mac, but putting OS X on a non-Apple x86 system may prove a bit tricky. (I didn't say impossible. But I suspect there will be a bit of "hoop jumping" involved). Macs have custom boot ROMs and Northbridges.

(4) Jokes going around : "Well now we know what the "i" stands for in iMac now".

(7) IBM's G5 CPUs have been the main factor in keeping Apple back. They promised 3Ghz...They couldn't deliver. Heck, they're struggling just to get to 2.7Ghz.

(8) Loss of Altivec. I'm not sure how much "Con" this could be as I've never used this myself. (Its like SSE/SSE2/SSE3 in a sense.)

(9) Mac fans don't like the Intel Inside sticker. LOL!

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. Most of us, most of the time, shouldn't be distracted by worrying about beating Microsoft's PR or countering their political moves, because writing good code is in the long run a far more potent weapon than flackery. -Eric S. Raymond

stmok wrote:(8) Loss of Altivec. I'm not sure how much "Con" this could be as I've never used this myself. (Its like SSE/SSE2/SSE3 in a sense.)

I was under the impression that Altivec was the reason for the Macs speed in some operations (graphics and video work). Given that Rosetta doesnt emulate Altivec I imagine this is going to cause some hassles during the transition period.